Jump to content

Talk:Air France Flight 447

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 95.149.55.68 (talk) at 13:59, 6 March 2019 (→‎Comparing flight 771 to AF447: Minor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Second and deadliest

I'm proposing a change to the last sentence of the lead, which seems awkward to me. Did you have to backtrack a couple of times, like I did, to make sure you got the sense of it:

It was also the Airbus A330's second and deadliest accident and its first in commercial passenger service.

I tripped up in various parts of this, including the "also" (also what?) the "second and deadliest" (okay, I get it, it's the second accident and deadliest accident; still had to read it twice). It wasn't till I backtracked right into the previous sentence[a], that I fully got it: this sentence is contrasting Airbus's accident record for this model, with Air France's accident record for all models.[b] Finally, from a grammar PoV, if it was the second accident, then shouldn't it be deadlier not deadliest? Unless there were 29 other A330 crashes since AF 447, then it's back to deadliest again, but the sentence sort of leaves us hanging on that point. And was it only deadliest for the A330? I'd hate to think there was an even more deadly accident for some other Airbus model.[c]

Is there a smoother way we can handle this? How about merging the two final sentences into one, thus:

The accident was the deadliest in the history of Air France;[5][6] while for the model A330, it was its first accident in commercial passenger service and second overall,[7] and Airbus's deadliest accident to date.{{cn}}

This seems clearer to me, complex comparison finessed, no backtracking needed. I've verified the "deadliest for Airbus" claim at the end of the sentence, but it required clicking a bunch of links and comparing counts model by model; would be nice to be able to establish that in one source. Mathglot (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ Previous sentence: "The accident was the deadliest in the history of Air France."
  2. ^ Which explains what that "also" is doing in there: it's the connective tissue setting up the comparison across sentences. Comparing things is easier when you hold all variables constant, and vary just one so you can see what's being compared. Here, we are varying 1) airline vs. manufacturer, and 2) all of AF's aircraft and models vs. one of AB's models. That's a complex comparison for our wee brains to handle on the fly, and needs careful language to be comprehensible.
  3. ^ Per Airsafe, there have been 44 Airbus crashes involving fatalities as of Dec. 2016.

Comparing flight 771 to AF447

I have moved the following discussion from my talkpage so that other editors can chime in. This discussion involves this revert. Dr. K. 20:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Start of user talk discussion
Air France Flight 447

I was going to verify that citation, but I'm not the best at source editing. Tigerdude9 (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky analogy with flight 447. Because for flight 447 there was no verdict of pilot error in the official investigation, as in the flight you try to compare it to. So, even if you have a source that says what you wrote, we go by the official investigation report of AF447, not by the opinion of the source, when it comes to calling it pilot error, or faulty crew cooperation etc.. Dr. K. 02:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it's tricky, yet the investigators of Afrqiyah Airways flight 771 stated that the crew failed to monitor their flight path and made different with the side-sticks too quickly, similar to flight 447 and it even brings up fatigue, as flight 771 pilot's all had less than 244 of rest before the flight (I might have failed to notice how much the crew of flight 447 slept, and no, I'm not editing the fatigue section of flight 447). If I can revert your edit (which I will only do if I have your permission) I should state that "just like 447, the crew of flight 771 failed to monitor their flight path properly and made opposite inputs to the side stick at the same time." To be honest I think I need to read the investigations of these crashes some more as I sometimes read (and sometimes type) too fast. Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has to go to the talkpage of AF447 along with your proposal, including quotes from the investigation of 771 comparing 447 to 771. Your quote from the investigation report of 771 must show that the statement "just like 447, the crew of flight 771 failed to monitor their flight path properly and made opposite inputs to the side stick at the same time." is included in the investigation report of 771 and it should not be your own conclusion. If the quote is your conclusion, it is WP:OR and it will not be added to the AF447 article. But I don't think the investigators of flight 771 can make conclusions about AF447 in any case, because they did not investigate AF447. I will copy this discussion to the AF447 talkpage so that other editors can give their opinion. Dr. K. 20:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
End of user talk discussion
  • Comment As I suspected, the final report of Afriqiyah Flight 771 does not have a single mention of AF447. Therefore, the conclusion proposed: "just like 447, the crew of flight 771 failed to monitor their flight path properly and made opposite inputs to the side stick at the same time.", is the conclusion of the proposing editor, and as such it is WP:OR. Dr. K. 20:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I cant really see that it is relevant to this accident. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. Thank you MilborneOne. Dr. K. 22:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. A strong secondary source would be needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That strong secondary source can be the LYCAA's final report on flight 771, and/or the sources in the "accident desciption" section of the article on flight 771. Tigerdude9 (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are we missing something, I cant see any mention of Air France in the LYCAA report. MilborneOne (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't think Tigerdude9 has read my comment above, stating that the LYCAA report makes no mention of AF447, and that his proposed addition is WP:OR. Also the Afriqiya 771 article makes no mention that 447 is comparable to flight 771. I think this editor is not getting the idea of what constitutes original research. Dr. K. 21:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn’t seem to link explicitly to that section. Would a link belong in the section Air_France_Flight_447#Other_incidents? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. I don't know what the practice is for other A330 accidents. Dr. K. 23:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, talking about this hypothetical unfound source ... The similarities go to the cockpit, the pilots and the controls, maybe visibility at the time of the event. These things are not particularly connected to the route. If cross A330 incident comparisons get coverage, I’m pretty sure that they belong at the A330 article, not the individual flight articles. I’m pretty sure there is no justification synthesising comparison here. I support the revert. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, a bit of unthreaded thought on my part. On cross linking I agree with you in being unsure. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal has been rejected. Hasn't it. Or I can just say flight 771 "crashed for reasons similar to flight 447 (despite flight 771's report not brining up flight 447)." Other than that, I'm about to give up. Also Dr., I saw your comment stating that I haven't read it about original research. Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as you say "crashed for reasons similar to flight 447 (despite flight 771's report not brining up flight 447).", that's already WP:OR. That "despite" means you are about to break WP:RS, and WP:OR. So, no. Not allowed. Dr. K. 23:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Them I assume I should say "crashed for reasons similar to flight 447 (although flight 771's report does not bring up flight 447)." I guess? Tigerdude9 (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Anything along these lines is WP:OR. Won't work under any circumstances. Let's forget about it. Dr. K. 02:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we will. I do admit that this was an interesting and discussion though! Tigerdude9 (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nearest parallel to AF447 is Birgenair Flight 301 which also crashed on a night flight due to pilots mis-diagnosing confusing messages from the flight instruments caused by a blocked pitot tube or static vent causing the autopilot to disconnect. The lack of airspeed indication in both cases caused an 'Overspeed' and a 'Mach Trim' warning, as well as a contradictory and confusing stall warning, that could have simply been discounted by the crew listening to the cockpit noise, which gets considerably louder as the speed of the aircraft increases due to the increased flow of air around the outside of the aircraft nose. The stall warnings could also have been partially-confirmed by the above method, the amount of noise in the cockpit, or rather the comparative lack of it compared to that heard in normal flight. Hence if the overspeed and Mach trim warning were erroneous, the stall warning was the one least likely to be incorrect.
In AF447's case the first mistake was the Captain going to his bunk leaving two relatively-inexperienced junior crew members to monitor the aircraft at night, albeit on autopilot. The second mistake was in whatever training the Second Pilot received not instilling in him the need to take both his hands and his feet off the controls as soon as the Captain announces 'I have control', a basic rule of initial pilot training the world over intended to prevent just this kind of accident. If either of these had not occurred it is likely the aircraft either would not have entered a stall in the first place, or the Captain could have recovered from it with height to spare as soon as he re-entered the cockpit.
Both accidents would likely not have occurred if they had been normal day flights rather than night flights.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Safe image

I found this on deviant art: https://www.deviantart.com/maggie-x-awesomeness/art/The-Pilots-of-AF-447-3-496480477 Should I use it? Tigerdude9 (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, and it has now been deleted as a copyright violation. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way we can get permission to use the image? This is gold finding pictures of the flight crew OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why we would want a picture of the flight crew. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change Summary?

I was wondering if we could change the summary to 'Entered Aerodynamic stall and impact ocean due to muutiple crew errors' it mentions that the crew were the cause as they made multiple errors as listed by the Final Report, and the plane did enter an aerodynamic stall leading it to crash into the ocean. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@OrbitalEnd48401:, please see RfC - What "Summary" should the Accident have? and A summary that describes the cause Tks.--PauloMSimoes (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, I have already read but, when I was going to edit this page there was a note beside the summary in the Edit Source. I wanted to ask if there was a dispute about what the summary should be. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@OrbitalEnd48401: Perhaps you would indicate where in the Final Report is the word "error" used in the sense you intend. I was unable to find it. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the report it does state failures made by the crew such as not ide identifying the stall. So I’d note crew error. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? In Wikipedia as elsewhere sources must be cited to be useful. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The report states a variety of crew errors. Link Here ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#CITEREFBEA_final2012 I think multiple crew errors should be added to the summary as there was poor crew resourse management i.e. captain pulling up on the cntrl column whereas the FO pushed down on the colum OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@OrbitalEnd48401: Nowhere does that report call those "crew errors". Please do not misrepresent what the report says. Terminology is very important in these matters. That term is very rarely used in modern investigations, and for good reason. If a crew is incompletely or incorrectly trained, then the training needs correction. Calling it a "crew error" or "pilot error" takes the onus for correction away from those who must learn, apply, and teach the lessons learned in order to make future operations safer. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would it be classed as? The summary doesn’t explain the prior causes, whereas others include example such as: spatial disorientation. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page 17 of the report lists the sequence of key events, but it is too lengthy for the infobox. The third bullet encapsulates it pretty well: "The crew not making the connection between the loss of indicated airspeeds and the appropriate procedure". We could reasonably paraphrase this as "Crew did not identify the correct procedure after airspeed indication was lost." That wording does not imply that they had been properly trained in the correct procedure for the circumstance.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So crew training error is another factor? Or crew resource management? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading your post, Could it be pilot error as they failed to moniter their altimeter, or CRM as none of the pilots worked together properly from reading CVR transcripts and reports? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrbitalEnd48401 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@OrbitalEnd48401: The key words in your last comment, are: "Could it be...[X].. or [Y]..." Entries in the article must be based on verifiable citations to reliable sources, as I'm sure you know. Speculation about what it could be is inappropriate here, per WP:TALK: discussions on Talk pages should be aimed at how to improve the article, not on speculation or general discussion about the topic. I think your original post at the top of this section is well within Talk policy, and was fine. But somewhere along the way, as it devolved more into, "Could it be this?" or "Could it be that?" it started to become more of a meandering, general speculation about the topic, and that is inappropriate for the Talk page, per WP:NOTFORUM. If you still have a specific comment or question to raise that relates directly to how to improve the article, you're more than welcome to do so. But to the extent that you're just curious about the topic in general, please don't raise that kind of question or comment here; instead, you can do that at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Thanks for your understanding, Mathglot (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right?? Well not to be rude but I don’t really care anymore because oh it’s been two months since I left that comment. I already know and I don’t need the thanks.

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable edit re pilot dialog

This edit has added various unsourced assertions to the #Accident section. Other than the edit summary (Added more dialogue from CVR transcript) and one hidden comment ("<!-- direct from the CVR transcript.-->") there are no citations of any kind for dialog added (and removed) in five separate chunks. Even if they match dialog in the transcript, there is no verification that dialog snippets were added in the right sequence, adjacent to non-transcript plain text in that section. I would have reverted this edit, but subsequent edits have made the "Undo" button nonfunctional. The content of this edit should be examined bit by bit, and either sourced properly, or removed. Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some dialogues can be confirmed in 02:10:05 – 02:10:25; 02:10:27 – 02:10:49 and 02:10:50 – 02:11:30.--PauloMSimoes (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PauloMSimoes:, thanks for that research. If confirmed, they should be cited. But beyond that, I have a problem with the quotations being woven here and there into the narrative of the story as they are now, because that's a kind of WP:SYNTH: that is, someone is making an editorial decision about where to place brief snippets of conversation within the larger narrative. Unless there is a source which combines the two, we must not do that. I would have no problem with taking all the snippets of conversation that are there now, removing them from their current location, and including them all together, in one section, without interruption by intervening parts of the narrative that are cited to different sources. But the way it is now, is not acceptable imho, and must be removed or rearranged. Mathglot (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_France_Flight_447&oldid=886471535"